Church > Long

[Wongle]

Please understand this Brian.

[M-U-R-T-Y]

Amen, start him and drop the useless twonk!

[Ian Royal]

Better in pre-season, scored more, all from open play. Happy to see him start in a two, not so sure about leading the line alone but I guess he's earned an opportunity to give it a go IMO.

[Avon Royal]

4-4-2 > 4-3-3

Blaming Long for a shit formation is moronic.

[roadrunner]

4-4-2 > 4-3-3

Blaming Long for a shit formation is moronic.

Track record supports the fact that he is utter gash.

[Ian Royal]

4-4-2 > 4-3-3

Blaming Long for a shit formation is moronic.

Shit formation that saw us win 4-0 in the last game.

[Yellowcoat]

What all you whingers forget is that it is a TEAM game.

[Avon Royal]

4-4-2 > 4-3-3

Blaming Long for a shit formation is moronic.

Shit formation that saw us win 4-0 in the last game.

And the two games before that?

Typical Reading fan........

[Basingstoke Royal]

4-4-2 > 4-3-3

Blaming Long for a shit formation is moronic.

Totally agree. He should have scored two today, but got to feel sorry for him being up front on his own and then church and hunt take the glory. 442 is the key not so much the players. I would start with long and hunt.

[Ian Royal]

4-4-2 > 4-3-3

Blaming Long for a shit formation is moronic.

Shit formation that saw us win 4-0 in the last game.

And the two games before that?

Typical Reading fan........

Firstly, we played 4-4-2 against Brizzle with Long & Hunt upfront.

Secondly four of our five other wins have have come with the 4-3-3 formation as you call it.

[PEARCEY]

I would like to see Church and Hunt up-front although QPR away is probably not the right game for it. Cardiff at home would be. We all know how potent Cardiff's attack is. I'm not convinced Hudson and Gypes are that special though and we need to look to attack these two. Long on his own is not the answer for that game.

[Millsy]

Better in pre-season, scored more, all from open play. Happy to see him start in a two, not so sure about leading the line alone but I guess he's earned an opportunity to give it a go IMO.

THIS.

But also...

4-4-2 > 4-3-3

Blaming Long for a shit formation is moronic.

THIS.

I'm going to sit back and not get involved with this because quite frankly I don't know at the moment.

Both views are valid. I think it's very hard to tease out what is going on.

Long is unprecedentedly sh*t IN A LONE STRIKER SITUATION. I think that's the only conclusion that can be drawn.

Solution?

Play Long in a 4-4-2?

Play Church or Hunt in a 4-5-1?

Tough problem.

4-5-1 works well against 10 men and a penalty and worked well with Gylfi.

Not working now. With someone like Forster we'd be laughing.

I suspect it's a mixture of Long's sh*tness and the inadequacy of 4-5-1 AS OUR ONLY SYSTEM.

[PEARCEY]

Long's not shit. He's not the prettiest player in the world but he does put himself about a bit. If he then gets subbed and a fresh Simon Church takes advantage of Long giving the centre-half a bit of a battering then he's done a job of sorts. He's due more credit than he gets but clearly he's never going to be an out an out goal-scorer.

[Svlad Cjelli]

Long would be absolutely superb as the second striker in a two-up-front, "big striker/little striker" combination.

But we've not got that main striker for him to create chances and knock-downs for - and as the only striker of one up front he's really good at winning the ball and not very good at all at scoring with it.

Hang on - haven't I posted this in the other 10+ threads on this subject?

[Snowball]

4-4-2 > 4-3-3

Blaming Long for a shit formation is moronic.

Track record supports the fact that he is utter gash.

Oh!

[Avon Royal]

4-4-2 > 4-3-3

Blaming Long for a shit formation is moronic.

Me > Brian

[Jimbo]

Long would be absolutely superb as the second striker in a two-up-front, "big striker/little striker" combination.

I think you might be right there.....!

[roadrunner]

4-4-2 > 4-3-3

Blaming Long for a shit formation is moronic.

Track record supports the fact that he is utter gash.

Oh!

His track record up to October 2010 was just that. I'm as pleased as anyone that he's finally scoring on a regular basis.

[Millsy]

Track record supports the fact that he is utter gash.

Oh!

His track record up to October 2010 was just that. I'm as pleased as anyone that he's finally scoring on a regular basis.

Spot on.

On what basis is he good now? Oh... goals. The ONE thing some people sidestepped and made excuses for by changing the goalposts a million times.

Those of us who stuck to our guns saying he was awful until he started scoring (even though the worst striker in the history of the club was given the longest fruitless runout in the history of the club) are now smiling with delight. Those of us pretending that was the one thing he *didn't* need to do because he ran a lot/won penalties/worked hard/was kind to animals/took good penalties/tired out the opposition/good play stairway-to-heaven must now be feeling a little dumb.

[Snowball]

Track record supports the fact that he is utter gash.

Oh!

His track record up to October 2010 was just that. I'm as pleased as anyone that he's finally scoring on a regular basis.

NOPE. His career track-record was still exceptional in terms of goals-per-minute
and he was playing very well indeed, just not finding the net (something
which happens to many many strikers, (Rooney, Forlan etc) and we were
persisting with 451 when it was obvious that 451 wasted his abilities.